Case 2:19-Cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 Filed 04/29/19 Pageid.595 Page 1 of 59
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.595 Page 1 of 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTH PLATE SEMICONDUCTOR, Case No. 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG LLC, Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Denise Page Hood v. Magistrate Judge: OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES Hon. David R. Grand INC., TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED, SMART EYE INTERNATIONAL INC., SMK ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, U.S.A. Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff North Plate Semiconductor, LLC (“NPS” or Plaintiff”) hereby asserts a claim for patent infringement against Defendants OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”), Texas Instruments Incorporated (“Texas Instruments”), Smart Eye International Inc. (“Smart Eye”), SMK Electronics Corporation, U.S.A. (“SMK”)(collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and in support thereof allege as follows: NATURE OF CASE 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq., specifically including 35 U.S.C. §271. Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.596 Page 2 of 59 2. As set forth below, Plaintiff holds the rights in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,211,509 (“the ‘509 patent”); 6,150,676 (“the ‘676 patent); 6,521,926 (“the ‘926 patent”); 7,928,483 (“the ‘483 patent”); 8,854,521 (“the ‘521 patent”); RE46123 (“the ‘123 patent”); 8,178,913 (“the ‘913 patent”) (cumulatively “Patents-in-Suit”). The United States patent laws grant the holder of a patent the right to exclude infringers from making, using, selling or importing the invention claimed in a patent, to recover damages for the infringer’s violations of these rights, and to recover treble damages where the infringer willfully infringed the patent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a), the Patents-in-Suit are entitled to a presumption of validity. Plaintiff is suing Defendants for infringing its patents, and doing so willfully. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from Defendants, including treble damages for willful infringement. THE PARTIES 3. North Plate Semiconductor, LLC is a company, organized and existing under the laws of the Delaware, with a principal place of business at 39555 Orchard Hill Place, Suite 600, Novi, Michigan, 48375. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 4275 Burton Drive, Santa Clara, 2 Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.597 Page 3 of 59 California 95054, and a regular and established place of business at 27280 Haggerty Road, Suite C15, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 48331. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Texas Instruments Incorporated is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 12500 TI Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75243, and a regular and established place of business at 29777 Telegraph Road, Suite 2500, Southfield, Michigan 48034. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Smart Eye International Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 455 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant SMK Electronics Corporation, U.S.A., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with a principal place of at 1055 Tierra del Rey, Chula Vista, California 91910, and a regular and established place of business at 39209 Six Mile Road, Suite #206, Livonia, Michigan 48152. JURISDICTION 8. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States of America, more specifically under 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., 3 Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.598 Page 4 of 59 including 35 U.S.C. §271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant, among other things, conducts business in, and avail themselves to the laws of, the State of Michigan. Upon information and belief, as set forth above in paragraphs 4 through 7, each Defendant has a regular and established place of business within this judicial district. Each Defendant has purposefully and regularly availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Michigan and in the Eastern District of Michigan and expected or reasonably should have expected its acts to have consequence in the State of Michigan and within this judicial District. Plaintiff’s cause of action arises directly from each Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of Michigan and in this District. Each Defendant have committed acts of patent infringement in this District, and have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiff in this District, by, among other things, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused OmniVision Products (as defined below) in this District. VENUE 10. Venue properly lies within this judicial district and division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because, as set forth above in paragraphs 4 4 Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.599 Page 5 of 59 through 7, each Defendant has regular and established place of business within the district and have committed acts of infringement within the district. 11. Upon information and belief, each Defendant separately maintains and operates places of business within this district. Defendant OmniVision’s acts of infringement within the district include, but are not limited to, selling and offering for sale the Accused OmniVision Products (as defined herein) within the district to its distributor, Arrow Electronics located in Plymouth, MI. Each Defendant’s acts of infringement within this district include, but are not limited to, selling and offering for sale products that incorporate the Accused OmniVision Products within this judicial district. Likewise, each Defendant resides in this District for the purposes of venue, insofar as they are subject to the personal jurisdiction in this District, solicit business in this District, conduct other business in this District, and have committed acts of infringement in this District. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT U.S. Patent No. 6,211,509 12. The ‘509 patent, entitled “Semiconductor Device And Method For Manufacturing The Same,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 8, 2012. The ‘509 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/714,586 filed on March 1, 2010 by inventors Hideki Okumura, Takayoshi Nogami, Hiroto Misawa. A true and correct copy of the ‘509 5 Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.600 Page 6 of 59 patent is attached hereto as Ex. A. 13. The ‘509 patent is valid and enforceable. 14. Plaintiff is the assignee and the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘509 patent, and has the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof. U.S. Patent No. 6,150,676 15. The ‘676 patent, entitled “MOS Type Image Sensor,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2000. The ‘676 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/266,007 filed on Mach 11, 1999 by inventor Michio Sasaki. A true and correct copy of the ‘676 Patent is attached hereto as Ex. B. 16. The ‘676 Patent is valid and enforceable. 17. Plaintiff is the assignee and the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘676 patent, and has the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof. U.S. Patent No. 6,521,926 18. The ‘926 patent, entitled “MOS Type Image Sensor,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 18, 2003. The ‘926 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/695,989 filed on 6 Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.601 Page 7 of 59 October 26, 2000 by inventor Michio Sasaki. A true and correct copy of the ‘926 Patent is attached hereto as Ex. C. 19. The ‘926 Patent is valid and enforceable. 20. Plaintiff is the assignee and the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘926 patent, and has the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof. U.S. Patent No. 7,928,483 21. The ‘483 patent, entitled “Semiconductor Device and Method for Manufacturing the Same,” was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 19, 2011. The ‘483 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/388,667 filed on February 19, 2009 by inventors Atushi Murakoshi and Katsunori Yahashi. A true and correct copy of the ‘483 Patent is attached hereto as Ex. D. 22. The ‘483 Patent is valid and enforceable. 23. Plaintiff is the assignee and the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘483 patent, and has the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof. U.S. Patent No. 8,854,521 24. The ‘521 patent, entitled “Solid-State Image Sensing Device and Control Method of Solid-State Image Sensing Device,” was duly and lawfully 7 Case 2:19-cv-10439-DPH-DRG ECF No. 25 filed 04/29/19 PageID.602 Page 8 of 59 issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 7, 2014.